“Ethnic cleansing can be carried out dramatically (as in this country in 1948 and in Kosovo in 1998) or in a quiet and systematic way, by dozens of sophisticated methods, as is happening now in east Jerusalem.

“But there cannot be the slightest doubt that this is the final stage of the one-state vision of the rightists. The first stage will be an effort to fill the entire country with settlements and to demolish any chance of implementing the two-state solution, which is the only realistic basis for peace.”

John: you may well be right that the prospects for a two-state solution are diminishing and may eventually disappear. The difference between us is that I regard that as a disaster, especially for the Palestinians, You, on the other hand, would welcome it because your primary concern is not the rights of the Palestinians but the destruction of Israel and the denial of self-determination to the Jews.

Deadhamsaid,

Good that you have confirmed that Israel is a racist and reactionary state. If there was a two-state settlement we would still end up with one Israeli state as we more or less have now based on racism, ethnic cleansing, land theft. The problem would have been deferred not solved and fratricidal war would be certain. Jews have no right to self-determination anymore than Muslims or Christians or Hindus. Israel must be subsumed into a democratic secular socialist Palestine despite what imperialism, the rotten Palestinian artistocracy, national bourgeoisie and their political reps and the vile zionist thieving murdering sect want.

Deadhamsaid,

I think you’ll find all religions originated amongst a distinct ethnic grouping and Judaism did just that in a section of the Arab or Semitic population in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Since then, however, it became a world religion as did Christianity. Lots of Russian Israelis are converted jews.

johngsaid,

Dr Paulsaid,

A two-state solution will lead very rapidly to a situation in which Arab residents of Israel will be told: ‘If you don’t like it here, you know where you can go.’ It will complete the institutionalisation of their inferior position within a self-defined ‘Jewish state’.

Another question for ‘two-staters’ is who is going to push Israel back into the 1967 borders? I reckon that any Israeli party that recommends that is unlikely to get much support, as the right-wing parties will ratchet up even further the siege mentality, on the grounds that this represents a major surrender to the Palestinians. Apart from the messianic frummer type of Israeli settler, there are a lot of Israelis in settlements who will not wish to be moved to behind the 1967 borders.

There are three types of monostatal solutions. One is predicated upon the expulsion of the Jewish Israelis — that is unacceptable to any left-winger. Another is predicated upon a Zionist takeover of the entire place, with the total subordination or (more likely) expulsion of non-Jews — that also is unacceptable to any left-winger. Both are reactionary solutions: one Arab chauvinist, the other Zionist chauvinist .

The third is a framework that gives full national and religious rights to all its inhabitants. Citizens can define themselves as Jewish ethnically and/or religiously, and Arab Muslim/Christian or just plain Israeli. There are a lot of things that would require working out, not least in respect of land confiscated after 1948. But I feel that this is the only solution that offers a democratic solution in which nationalist sentiments can be overcome: this programme has nothing in common with either of the other monostatal solutions.

Two-staters often consider that this third solution is utopian. But the longer the current situation continues and the more land that Israeli settlers take over in the Palestinian areas, the less possible is a solution based upon two states along the 1967 borders.

johngsaid,

Agreed. Why ‘socialists’ like Jim insist on shooting the messenger is beyond me. His time would be better spent fighting the Israeli right who are making the reactionary versions of the above scenarios more and more likely.

johngsaid,

I think a one state solution is now inevitable. The destruction of the political credibility of those sections of the Palestinian national movement who had bought into a two state solution by the actions of Israel itself (ie the continuing and massive expansion of settlements, the continuing and massive security operations that resulted etc) initially saw the rise of Hamas. A vacuum had in effect opened up in the leadership of the Palestinian national movement given the growing implausibility of their stated aims (ie the two state solution) given the stances of successive Israeli governments).

I think its quit possible that as the population between the Jordon and the Mediterranean begins to see the emergence of a Palestinian majority at the same time as there is further migration into the territories as well as the kind of land grabbing by both state and religious movements we’ve seen over the last couple of decades the emergence of a movement demanding equal rights for all Palestinians under Israeli administration will increasingly move to the center of political discourse.

I think it will be increasingly hard for anyone to deny the moral force of these arguments as the demographic balance shifts further. After all why should Israeli’s be allowed to move into the west bank but west bankers not be allowed to move into Israel? Today those who hold your position can say that Israeli’s SHOULDN’T do this but once they’ve already done so what do you say to Palestinians who demand the right to move into Israel proper? And given that they are under Israeli administration why should they not have the same rights as Palestinian Arabs in Israel (at present I think 20 per cent of Israeli citizens) who are also growing as a population.

Remember as well that the latter also have political parties and are players in Israeli politics even if they are subjected to absurd judicial restrictions on what they can say (although thankfully they are now allowed to say they are Palestinians). When you combine that with the very likely prospect of growing movements for democracy in neighboring countries in the middle east, I don’t think at all unlikely that you could see the growth of new forms of politics which any government might find very hard to deal with.

The Israeli right are already aware of this possibility. Its why all the parallels with South Africa scare them. Its why even Sharon recognized the need to disentangle Israel from its occupation (although for Sharon this was also an attempt to prevent negotiations about a future Palestinian state). But the compulsions of politics in Israel mean that the reverse is actually happening. In such a situation I don’t see how socialists could argue against equal rights and citizenship for all those under Israeli rule. Or leave behind any pretense of being anything but drummers for the most chauvinist kinds of nationalism.

“I think its quit possible that as the population between the Jordon and the Mediterranean begins to see the emergence of a Palestinian majority at the same time as there is further migration into the territories as well as the kind of land grabbing by both state and religious movements we’ve seen over the last couple of decades the emergence of a movement demanding equal rights for all Palestinians under Israeli administration will increasingly move to the center of political discourse”

Like all anti-semites, you *long* for this, don’t you Game? Your SWP-inspired hatred of Israel and Israeli Jews knows no bounds, which is why you relish the de-legitimisation of Israel, and line up with the Israeli right and Hamas in welcoming the demise of “two states” as a way forward. In your anti-semitic wet-dream, this will be bought about by demographics rather than by any sort of political settlement. You long for a situation in which Palestinians are analagous to South African blacks under apartheid. You really are a hateful, vicious character, aren’t you? You’re probably not to blame personally: it’s the SWP, themselves miseducated by Cliff (under cover of his much-trumpeted Jewishness) who have miseducated a generation like you into “left” anti-semitism.

David D.said,

I think anyone writing this has already ruled himself out of the community of rational commenters. “Inevitable”?! Possibly “desirable”, under some far-fetched scenario that isn’t just a wet dream of swuppy antisemites. But “inevitable”? There is just no way, right now or in the foreseeable future, that Israel would give up control of its government and territory… as a Jewish state. Might as well ask the Greeks to acquiesce to joint Turkish rule.

The Palestinians were foolish not to take the offer at Taba. The political climate in Israel was far more conciliatory then (right up to start of the 2nd intifada). Since then, under incitement by Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, etc. and – not incidentally – Western anti-zionists who are more Catholic than the Pope, the Palestinian position has hardened. In response (I think the turning points were when unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza resulted in massive rocket fire) the peace camp in Israel has been noticably enfeebled. It will take a lot of good will – in short supply on either side right now – for the parties to get back to where things were in 1999. In short, any current talk of a one-state “solution”, at least by swuppies and their ilk, is English for “Juden raus”.

johngsaid,

No I did’nt say desirable. I said inevitable. I think it probably is. Argue with me. Explain how the factors I mention can be dealt with. Oh I notice that you seriously believe the ‘western left’ incites Palestinians. Sorry I’d thought you might be in some sense a serious commentator. Jim Denham is clearly mad so there is little point in arguing with him.

David D.said,

Kuching Hitamsaid,

‘Trotskyite’ in comapany with ‘Swuppie’ are certain indicators that an interlocutor is a demented neocon. Next he’ll be chanting that imperialism and globalisation bring undreamt of wealth and freedom to the poor and oppressed of the world — say brother can you spare a DIME?

jim denhamsaid,

Gameboy: the day I take *anything* that the poseur and shyster Tariq Ali has to say, seriously, is the day I give up on politics. Or, indeed, upon rational, sceptical thought. Especially as I note he is speaking amongst friends, at that gathering of “left” anti-semites, the SWP’s so-called “Marxism” event.

Dr Paulsaid,

Re Jim D’s reply to me. To call on Israel to abolish itself? If that means to stop defining itself as a Jewish state and to call itself a state of all its inhabitants, defining them as equal citizens regardless of ethnicity and/or religion, well, yes. That would mean Israel becoming more of a bourgeois democracy than it presently is. Rather, perhaps, like Britain where one can be a citizen irrespective of ethnicity or religion. So it’s not a question of socialism but the matter of a self-proclaimed liberal democracy actually being a bit more like one.

Of course, equality before the law does tend to be formal, and bourgeois democracies can contain all manner of discrimination, both official and unofficial, but at least formal constitutionally-guaranteed equality gives people a chance to fight for racial and religious equality. (There is also the question of social equality, but no bourgeois democracy can of course deal with that, so let’s not take that up here other than to say that this question is about socialism.)

If one, as Jim D and his Shiraz Socialist pals appear to do, supports the right of Israel to be a Jewish state, as opposed to a state affording equal constitutional rights to all its inhabitants, why is this, as socialists are supposed to be opposed to all instances of discrimination, and not least institutional discrimination.

Just because the majority of Israel’s Jewish population wouldn’t accept at the moment the secularisation/de-ethnicisation of Israel is no reason to uphold it: socialists do not accept as morally correct a decision just because it is held by a majority. We would not accept, say, a colour bar, unequal pay for women, a ban on Jewish membership, because a union branch meeting, or a union conference, voted for it. We would vote against it, and campaign for it to be overturned, whilst at the same time actively try to sabotage it.

As for what social forces can achieve a democratic one-state solution, it must be from within the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine and Israel. It can’t be imposed from outside, not that it’s likely to be. It will entail a Jewish rejection of Zionism on the one hand, and an Arab acceptance of the existence of the Hebrew nation on the other.

A long shot, yes. But there’s no other way, I feel. A two-state solution would not lead to a decline of Zionism, nor to anti-Jewish attitudes amongst the Palestinians: it would accentuate them, thus institutionalising them, making them even more entrenched. The political beneficiaries would be hard-line chauvinists on both sides.

Finally, if there was, as I imagine you’d like to see, a growing movement on both sides favouring a democratic solution to the problem, then might it not be better for such a movement to call for unity between the nationalities, rather than further institutional and ethnic/religious division?

jim denhamsaid,

Doc: all existing states have their own definitions of citizenshp and all privilege their own nationals, and all nationalism contains within it a core of chauvinsim and/or racism. Why Israel’s definition of who is and who isn’t a citizen is qualitively worse than that of (say) the UK or France, and excites so many people, is a mystery to me. *Of course* I’d like Isreal to become a completely non-discriminatory nation with open borders, and then to wither away. Just like every other nation in the world. But I’d suggest that while the UK, France and Saudi Arabia still exist, with their own particular definitions of citizenship, it’s a bit much to demand that Israel dismantles itself.

Good, however, to read that you do not advocate the dismantling of Israel “from outside.” Presumably, then you expect the Israelis to do what no other people in history have ever done, viz: having achieved nationhood, to voluntarily give it up. Once again, the Jews must blaze a trail ahead of the rest of humanity in order to be worthy of the “left”‘s approval!